Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Councilman Reid and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that <br /> Resolution No. 69-48, naming the park, temporarily referred to as Orloff Park, <br /> Amador Valley Community Park, be adopted. <br /> The roll call vote was as follqws: <br /> AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Reid, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Gerton <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilman Rega <br /> <br /> Report of the Recreation and park Commission Re: Recommended increase in Park <br /> Dedication Fees <br /> Mr. Fales reviewed the report of the Recreation and Parks Commission,dated <br /> February 28, 1969, which recommended an increase for in-lieu fees in connection <br /> with the Park Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Fales explained that when the Park <br /> Dedication Ordinance was originally adopted, land was valued at approximately <br /> $8,000.00 per acre and in the last few years has increased considerably. Mr. <br /> Fales stated the Commission feels that the park fees which may be required in- <br /> stead of the dedication of land should be brought in line with current land <br /> values. Mr. Fales concurred with the Recreation and Parks Commission's recommen- <br /> dation to retain a land appraiser for the purpose of up-dating raw land values <br /> within the City and also later to amend our ordinance in accordance with the <br /> appraiser's recommendations. <br /> Councilman Spiliotopoulos stated that he was not in favor of hiring an apprai- <br /> ser as he thought this could be done by the City staff· <br /> It was moved by Councilman Reid and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that the <br />City staff be authorized to retain an appraiser for the purpose of bringing land <br />values up to 1969 levels in order to increase the Park Dedication Fees, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Betaills, Reid and Mayor Getton <br />NOES: Councilman Spiliotopoulos <br />ABSENT: Councilman Rega <br /> <br />Report of the Recreation and Park Commission Re: Request for Co-Sponsored Status <br />b~ Pleasanton National Little League <br /> Mr. Fales reviewed the report of the Recreation and Parks Commission and their <br />Resolution No. R-69-7, dated February 20, 1969, in which was recommended that the <br />City Council grant the co-sponsored status to the Pleasanton National Little <br />League and to transfer all funds budgeted for 1968-69 for youth baseball for use <br />by the Pleasanton National Little League. Mr. Fales explained that the Pleasanton <br />National Little League will be managing approximately 500 Pleasanton boys between <br />the ages of 8 and 12, as the Playball League is no longer in existance. Mr. Fales <br />recommended that the $1,350·00, which was originally budgeted for the Playball <br />League, be transferred to the Pleasanton National Little League. <br /> It was moved by Councilman Reid and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that <br />Resolution No. 69-49, accepting the Co-Sponsored Status to the Pleasanton National <br />Little League and authorizing the transfer of $1,350.00 previously budgeted for <br />the non-existant Playball League to the Pleasanton National Little League, be <br />adopted· <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Reid, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Gerton <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilman Rega <br /> <br />REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER <br />Report Re: Consideration of Establishin~ an assessment district under the 1913 <br />Improvement Act financed with 1915 Act Bonds for Tract 2892 (Lon~view) <br /> Mr. Fales stated that Dr. Long, developer of Tract 2892, Longview, has re- <br />quested that an assessment district be established to construct and finance the <br />"in-tract" improvements of his proposed subdivision. <br /> Mr. Fales reviewed the report of the Assistant City Manager, dated February <br />28, 1969, which explained in detail the procedures required to establish an <br />assessment district under both the 1911 and 1913 Improvement Act and the 1911 and <br />1915 Bond Acts. Mr. Fales called attention to the advantages of the 1915 Bond <br />Act but stated that these advantages must be weighed against the risk of pledging <br />a portion of the City's tax rate to insure the success of the developer, as well <br />as the Council's policy that the cost of "in-tract" improvements should be borne <br />solely by the developer. <br /> Mr. Robert Brunsell, from the firm of Sturgis, Den-Dulk, Douglass and Anderson, <br />Bond Counselors, also explained the difference in the Improvement and Bond Acts <br />and the 10¢ Override Tax. <br /> <br /> <br />